Electricity still needs a specifically built medium to pass through before it can form a consciousness, though. You can’t just send electricity through a tree and expect the tree to suddenly become conscious. Electricity is just a key ingredient of consciousness, not the full picture.
Bodies have neutral pathways that allow electricity to simulate consciousness if regulated properly. Same with computers and circuitry.
Way back in my senior year of high school (around 2002), we had a debate project where everyone partnered up, picked a controversial topic, picked a side of the topic, and then researched and advocated for their side to the rest of the class, including a Q&A at the end, where the class could challenge their position.
To our surprise, the two hottest girls in our class picked prostitution as their topic, and advocated for it to be legalized. The teacher was also surprised, and curious enough to let them present their topic to the class.
We all thought they were joking with their topic, to get a rise out of all the horny boys. After all, as 17/18 year olds, our experience with prostitution came from movies or TV documentaries, where it was generally shown as a disgusting and degrading act; the last resort for a woman down on her luck.
But the girls’ presentation was incredibly well researched, with figures regarding the number of deaths, violent crime, drugs, and human trafficking involved in illegal prostitution, compared to Nevada’s legalized prostitution since the 1970s, which had practically no numbers to report.
They even did a deep dive into a brothel in Nevada, where the women were paid very well and treated kindly and fair and not like they’re just a piece of meat. Plus, they had regular checkups and practically free health care because of their profession. They even walked through the various services they provided, since some people (they serviced anyone, not just men) wanted other forms of intimacy instead of just sex. It was a safe and judgment-free environment, on both sides of the table, and the women employed there actually wanted to do the job, with the option to quit anytime. Unlike illegal prostitution, which removed the woman’s autonomy over her own body and placed her in dangerous situations, exposed to violence and drugs to barely make a living.
In the end, the girls did a fantastic job on their presentation and convinced a whole class of seniors that prostitution could be an honest and respectable position, and should be legalized. I’ve never looked at it the same way since.
Oh damn, I’m starting on the Boomer habit of complaining about Zoomer culture when it’s actually Alpha culture.
It feels like yesterday, Boomers were complaining about how annoying millennial kids were, when we were actually adults in our 20s/30s at the time. I’m just realizing that was over a decade ago, and now I’m doing the same thing to Zoomers. Someone please stop time before I get any older; I want to get off.
Had to guess on the boomerang. I’ve seen boomerangs but didn’t know that’s what they’re called nor have I ever posted one.
I’ve never heard of a “boomerang” that wasn’t referring to the Australian tool/toy. I totally guessed on that one too. I don’t post videos to any social media platform, so I was totally out of the loop on that one.
Skibidi toilet? As a 39-yr old millennial, I’m aware that was a thing like a year ago, but I assumed it was a Zoomer meme or something. I can’t get past that captcha.
EDIT: Upon looking at it again, I see it just wants me to type in “what is skibidi toilet” into Google, not answer what it is. Ugh, I’m turning into my Silent Generation/Boomer parents.
It’s my first name and a single syllable of my last name. This is my standard user account that all my family and friends know, so if they want to find me online, they know what to look for.
I used to do private user accounts so I could post things that I didn’t want people in my life to find, but then I realized I just didn’t care to use them. I stay true to myself, even online. Anything I post is what I would happily share with anyone in my life anyway, so there’s no reason for me to maintain multiple accounts anymore.
Also, I’m retired now, so it’s not like I need to watch what I say online. I don’t have to fear my boss finding less-than-professional social media content I’ve posted. My friends are all still working and they get really nervous about broadcasting our chats, like when I’m trying to stream our gaming sessions on Twitch. They sometimes vent about their work, and they’re afraid of their employer finding it. (BTW, I don’t record our game sessions.)
One friend in particular will ditch our game nights completely if I mention it’s going to be livestreamed. I live halfway across the country from him and I don’t even know his employer, but he’s paranoid they’ll somehow stumble across my Twitch stream and recognize his voice or something. I’m lucky if I get 2 viewers all night long, so I’m pretty sure he’s safe.
In the US, pensions have almost completely gone away, in favor of 401K programs. A pension is (typically) a monthly fixed income given by your former employer for the rest of your life upon retiring from a career.
The 401K program is more like a retirement savings account; you contribute a portion of your paycheck toward it each month and your employer will match your contribution up to a certain pre-designated amount. Whatever money is in that account becomes your own personal “pension” that you live off of after you reach retirement age. Instead of your employer putting aside money to pay retired employees, now you’re responsible for setting aside that money yourself, with a little extra contribution from your company.
Employers prefer the 401K program because they invest a little extra money into you initially, but then they don’t have to pay out a pension for the rest of a former employee’s life. So they save money in the long run. Meanwhile, your retirement depends on you being fiscally responsible early in your career instead of expecting a fixed income to cover you later in life.
All right, now I’m convinced you’re just a burner account for my wife. You’re still arguing semantics, distracting with irrelevant information, and are willingly misunderstanding instead of contributing to the actual conversation. Looks like you care more about arguing than having an actual productive discussion, so it’s not really worth my time to try and rehash this in even simpler terms for you.
But I will condede, I meant 90 days, not 30. That was an honest slip of the fingers.
EDIT: Fine, because it’s bothering me how poorly you’re following this discussion, here’s an actual response:
Congress in Iraq 2003 authorized before, rather than after. […]
Irrelevant. My point was that the president can act on his own. Period. That was the whole discussion, from the very start. Congress is not needed. Just because Congress has been consulted with, and approved further action before the president gave the order, doesn’t mean he can’t do it.
You’re trying to say the president can’t send troops overseas into enemy territory without approval from Congress and that is simply wrong. You’ve been quoting the War Powers Act in every thread here, and even corrected me on the 90 days rule, yet you still act like the president’s hands are tied without Congress signing off on everything he does. That’s literally the point of the 90 day rule!
The name of the medal was official. I’m not going to re-litigate the entire subject, but if your point is that there was an aversion to using the word “war” in public, that simply wasn’t so. […]
Okay, let me simplify this for you, since you’re struggling with reading comprehension. Publicly, it was called the Iraq War. Because that’s the term the civilian population latched onto and we couldn’t shake that perception. Same with Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc. Not official wars, but the public named them and we didn’t argue semantics with news agencies, lest it ruin our credibility. (Like arguing with trolls about semantics online. Hmm…) We do not have an aversion to using “war” publicly. We actually prefer to use that word publicly.
In an official capacity though (read: behind-the-scenes military documentation/records/discussion/etc.), it’s always been the Iraq Campaign. We do not call it a war because Congress never declared war. It’s literally as simple as that. Our written military history will officially have it documented as a military campaign and nothing more. The medal awarded for participation in the Iraq War is literally called the Iraq Campaign Medal.
The medal you’re referring to in your comment is the Global War on Terrorism medal. Not related to the Iraq War, or any war in particular. It’s a stupid declaration by a former president who wanted to make a statement about standing up to the 9/11 attacks, and award any service member who takes part in this so-called “War on Terror.”
And again, we use the word “war” publicly, so there’s no reason we can’t have it on that particular medal. It’s not referencing a specific military campaign, so it can be named the Global War on Terrorism medal. Refer to the “War on Drugs” comment in my last reply.
I usually don’t have to deep dive into the specifics about these things with civilians
Perhaps an assumption?
An assumption about what? You obviously didn’t serve in the military, or else you would know all this and I wouldn’t have to spell this out multiple times for you. So yes, I’m assuming you’re just a civilian who read a few articles and are now struggling to follow actual information from someone who experienced it first-hand through the military, because it didn’t align with whatever comprehension you took away from the subject.
Man, you sound just like my wife. Always arguing semantics when the overall point I’m making is pretty clear. ;) Now it’s my turn to point out the (ridiculous) semantics of the GWOT.
The Global War on Terrorism was a (rather ignorant) blanket statement made by then-president George W. Bush Jr., implying the concept of fighting terrorism across the globe. It had nothing to do with the Iraq War; it actually predates that campaign. It was a direct response to 9/11, with the Iraq War being the first active military campaign justified under it. We’ve been awarded the two GWOT medals for various military campaigns around the globe. I earned the expeditionary medal from a humanitarian deployment to Africa, of all places, and earned the service medal while stationed in Japan. And they’re still being awarded today, even though we’ve completely pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite using the word “war” in the medal’s name, the concept behind it was akin to the “War on Drugs.” It’s not an actual war against a particular nation or people; it’s a war on a concept. How can you fight a concept?!
Terrorism is a very vague word that applies to any situation in which someone uses fear and/or intimidation to get their way. We’ve definitely used that specific definition to justify stepping into situations we had no reason to be involved in. Like Iraq.
Much like the War on Drugs, I’m sure we’ll eventually see that there’s no possible way to win against the concept of terrorism, and we’ll silently phase it out. Heck, we’ve been ordered as of 2021 to start restricting the award of the GWOT-Service medal, so we’re already beginning to phase it out. It was a stupid statement, made by a stupid president who constantly flubbed his words, and shouldn’t be taken at face value.
To your other point, yes, I used the word “just” when referring to the president’s decision. The reason being, it is solely his decision, as the highest ranking leader of the Department of Defense (DoD), to implement the military in “campaigns” across the globe. He does not need anyone’s permission to deploy us.
However, you are correct that the War Powers Act restricts how he uses the military. He can send us out on a whim, but without that approval by Congress, he’d have to pull us back within 30 days. And he’s not allowed to actively order us into hostile situations without approval by Congress.
If we encounter hostilities while out on various campaigns, though, we’re authorized to respond appropriately to the situation via the Rules of Engagement (RoE). Kind of a loophole, which I have definitely seen used before. “Oops, we just happened to be passing through on a patrol and terrorists jumped out of nowhere and opened fire on us! We ended the initial threat, but quick, approve our sustained operations in the area so we can identify and neutralize lingering threats!”
Also, the public referred to the Iraq War as such, and news agencies latched onto the term, so politicians started using it too. And our Public Affairs office instructed military officials who were authorized to speak officially to the public to use common lingo.
But as military members, operating in an official capacity, we were required to use the “correct terminology” in our discussion and documentation, so as not to give off the wrong impression on official records. Which is why we were expected to use Iraq Campaign instead of Iraq War in our official lingo. Future generations will see our official records documented during the Iraq War, and the DoD prefers it’s framed in a certain way, so it doesn’t seem like we were intentionally encouraging a war in the region. As much of a failure as that campaign was, and as paper-thin our excuse was for deploying there, we don’t want people to also think we were just war-hungry terrorists or something. Right?? 9_9
Apologies if my semantics are not 100% accurate; I usually don’t have to deep dive into the specifics about these things with civilians, so I tend to “handwave away” the details, as you put it. I’m sorry if was a bit loose with my verbiage.
I mean, my point still stands. They weren’t officially declared wars, and they were the president deciding to get involved in foreign affairs. The only difference is that Congress decided to vote on our involvement from 1973 onwards.
So our latest presidents have been more generous about sharing the decision instead of steamrolling ahead on their own. Probably a better move politically; he won’t take the full blame if the decision isn’t popular, like Vietnam.
Technically only Congress can authorize a war. However, the president can and often will undertake “peacekeeping efforts” or “counterinsurgency operations” or “targeted strikes” without congressional approval.
I served in the US military during the Iraq War. Everyone refers to it as a war, but within the military, it was officially called the Iraq Campaign, as it was a military campaign sanctioned by the president. We couldn’t officially call it a war because Congress didn’t approve a war in the Middle East.
Technically, the last war Congress approved was WWII. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, even our first foray into Iraq with the Gulf War… none of these are official wars. Just the president deciding to step in and get involved in foreign conflicts.
I read this joke with my grandmother’s New England accent. She always said “idear” instead of “idea.”
That’s why I said their time travel theory doesn’t make sense. The movie doesn’t even follow its own logic.
Back to the Future had an extremely convoluted time travel theory that didn’t actually make sense, but one interesting idea they sparked is that you create branching timelines when you go back to the past. Meaning your present timeline remains unaltered, but you basically skip to a new reality when you time travel. Essentially, they claimed the multiverse exists and you travel across dimensions, not necessarily time, when you used the Delorean.
Maybe this is why we never meet time travelers. Because our current universe is an unaltered world and any time traveling that happens here just sends people to other universes instead of our established timeline.
This theory is kind of nightmare fuel when you consider Doc and Marty left Marty’s girlfriend on her porch in a dark future and just expected her to be there when they “fixed” the timeline. Nah, bro. You just abandoned her in the darkest timeline. The girl you picked up was an alternate reality version of her.
*EDIT: Back to the Future, not Bank to the Future.
Your example is from the '80s cartoon show, but Alvin and the Chipmunks are far older than that. They were a band (originally David Seville and the Chipmunks) formed in 1958, using a sped-up technique developed by David Seville (real name Ross Bagdasarian).
It did have a cartoon spinoff in 1961 named The Alvin Show, then later after David Seville’s death, an '80s cartoon show named Alvin and the Chipmunks. And then in the early 2000s, a series of live-action/CG films.
When I was a kid (in the early '80s), my parents had several vinyl records of David Seville and the Chipmunks and I used to listen to them on repeat all the time. They also had a vinyl record of David Seville’s “Witch Doctor” single, which pioneered the sped-up chipmunk voice effect. That song was an earworm! We’d be singing it for days after hearing it once. It’s no wonder Alvin and the Chipmunks became a hit sensation.
I use Win+Pause as a shortcut to bring up the system menu in Windows. I’ve used it so much over the years, it takes me a minute to figure out how to find that menu when I’m using a keyboard that doesn’t have a Windows key.
I also use Home and End about equally. Quick way to scroll back and forth across text or files/folders.
I’m more of a lurker, but this is an interesting way to see where I tend to contribute more.
It’s the other way around; you connect to seeders.
In the example of 2 (3), there are 3 total seeders and you’re connected to 2 of them.
Although in your screenshot, you’re at 100%, so you’re not connected to any seeders at the moment and are, yourself, a seeder. You have peers (leechers) connecting to you. Same principle applies; in an example of 2 (7), there are 7 peers in total, and 2 of them are actively leeching off you.
When I was a child, my mother had to travel to Kentucky for work and I told everyone who asked that she was at “Kentucky Fried Chicken.”
My dad pointed out where Kentucky was on the map, and I almost immediately saw the chef and pan in the state shapes. I’ve never forgotten where Kentucky was since then.